Talk:Derry/Archive 7

Londonderry
The official name of the city is Londonderry, not Derry. Why isn't it called that on this article? This article is misleading and should be renamed with the opening line stating Londonderry and only Londonderry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.185.148 (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:COMMONNAME which is Wikipedia policy and WP:OFFICIAL which isn't. Dmcq (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME is stupid for this issue seeing as Londonderry is equally a common name for the city. Mabuska (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * COMMONNAME wasn't even the reason why this page uses the current title.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 21:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What was the reason then? There is no problem with a clash with County Londonderry. And as to Mabuska we went through that point quite thoroughly last year and Derry was far more common. They names only only seemed of somewhat comparable usage on Google until one eliminated the Londonderry and Derry names referring to the towns in America and other usages like that not referring to the city. Dmcq (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * In 1973 Northern Ireland was divided into 26 district council areas. One of those was the District of Londonderry which was given city status because within it lay the smaller City of Londonderry. The smaller City of Londonderry still exists today and has a Lord Lieutenant. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Lieutenant_of_the_City_of_Londonderry ) In 1984, the larger 1973 creation known in full as "The City and District of Londonderry" had its name changed to "The City and District of Derry", but that did not affect the smaller City of Londonderry that lies within it, whose official name still remains "Londonderry". The 1973 creation "The City and District of Derry" has now been disbanded, but the original pre-1973 City of Londonderry continues. Meanwhile the County of Londonderry is, and has always been Londonderry. The Royal Mail postal district is also officially called Londonderry. An encyclopaedia is there to give facts. It's not there to state the facts as a small group of active editors would wish the facts to be. Also, the thing above about common name is wrong. Media outlets always use the official name Londonderry on first mention. This article should be renamed Londonderry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.190.142 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 14 April 2015‎ (UTC)


 * This follows on from this discussion on the Nigel Dodds talk page. "The City and District of Derry" has been replaced by "Derry city and Strabane" council. In general, though, you're covering ground and making arguments which have been offered many times before and as I said to you, Wikipedia does not always go by official names and it's not the case that all media outlets use Londonderry at first mention, many US-based media outlets, such as the New York Times, frequently refer to Derry, however all this has been discussed before. Valenciano (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Well I'm not surprised to hear that these arguments have been made before. So why the decision to use the short name when clearly there have been many editors over the years wanting the official name to be used? Who has ever proved that the shortened name 'Derry' is the common name in greater use? Why has wikipedia decided that it must take the republican side against the official name? From what I can see, a small group of editors must be continually active on this page for the purpose of pushing the name 'Derry', not because it's correct, but because that's the way they would like it to be. I think that as more people become aware of this abuse, the article will eventually have to be restored to the correct official name of the city, which is Londonderry. There is a good historical reason why the city is called Londonderry. It's because it was established in its modern form by the Honourable Irish Society whose members were drawn from the City of London. I take it that this article is about the City of Londonderry, as per the boundary that divides it from the County of Londonderry, in other words, the boundary of the pre-1973 corporation and which still applies today for ceremonial purposes and Lord Lieutenant purposes? What would happen if I were to change the Kolkata article to Calcutta and argue that the latter has always been the common name in the English speaking world? Would that be allowed under the rules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.190.142 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 15 April 2015‎ (UTC)


 * Personally, I've always called it Londonderry myself. However the compromise here it quite adequate at the moment, the county of Londonderry and the city of Derry. Seems quite reasonable to be honest. Also, please remember to sign your posts with four tides. :) Like this→ ~
 * C h r i s ☮ (Talk) 21:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That's not a logical compromise when both the city and the county are called Londonderry. That only causes confusion, and why do you need a compromise at all? The way to handle it is to use the official name in both cases and then say in the lead that republicans prefer to call it Derry because they don't like the reference to London. You tell readers the plain facts. You shouldn't adjust the facts to appease political activists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.190.142 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)‎
 * The relevant Wikipedia policy governing this is WP:COMMONNAME. There's been a lot of disputes on this and you can look through the archives of this talk page for them and check the statistics yourself and Derry does seem to win in references to the city by a sizable margin both generally and in books. Have a Google search of 'Londonderry uk' and have a look at the first few pages and think what that means. The title of the article on the county is 'County Londonderry' so no compromise on that score is necessary. There's no problem like for instance the one over whether the title Ireland should be used for the island or the state where it has been decided the island has the better claim. Dmcq (talk) 08:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To answer the point about Calcutta/Kolkata, yes, it would be perfectly possible under Wikipedia rules to have Calcutta. For a real example of this, see Ivory Coast, which is used instead of the official name. Valenciano (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

In general, where a controversy arises, an encyclopaedia should state the facts and then explain the controversy in the lead. In this case the article should be called Londonderry and it should then say in the lead something along the lines of "often called Derry for short, particularly by republicans who resent the mention of London in the name. You need to explain why the controversy exists and I don't see any evidence that this has been done. Instead, wikipedia has chosen to alter the facts in order to suit a particular political pressure group. It looks to me as though those wanting to call it Derry don't want their reasons known, but instead want readers to think that it is already called Derry. That is misinformation. 86.162.190.142 (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia policy on this is WP:COMMONNAME. That is the appropriate place to complain about and change the policy. There is a big section about the name just immediately after the lead. Do you really want the lead to go on about sectarianism? Dmcq (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

This is the page to discuss it. It's not an issue about 'common name'. It's an issue about one party disliking the word 'London' in the official name. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to give correct facts. If there is controversy over a name, then that fact should be mentioned, along with any reasons, in some part of the article. Maybe not the lead. It's not the duty of wikipedia to hide facts because the dissenting party don't want their motives to be exposed. At the moment you are trying to pretend that the name is already 'Derry', and this then carries through to articles such as the Nigel Dodds article, where no explanation is given for the use of the shortened name. 86.162.190.142 (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's a policy issue. If you want Wikipedia to use official names rather than names that are most commonly used, you need to take that up at a policy level. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a policy issue that resulted from editors who object to "London" in the name. The whole name issue has and always is a blatant piece of anti-British racism. Never hear a problem with other places the "Brits" named that don't include London or royalty. Mabuska (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * wikipedia doesn't have policies. The so-called policies are not binding and are only a device created by a majority of editors at a particular time in an attempt to lock in the edits that they have just forced through in a dispute. Everything that is written in wikipedia is determined by what a majority of editors at any particular moment in time decide. It's open to change this article to 'Londonderry' if a majority of editors so decide. Those who want to have it as 'Derry' should openly admit their actual reason and not pretend that it's because they are merely supporting wikipedia policy. The reason will of course be anti-Britishness, but I note from looking through the history that these anti-British editors are always shy to openly admit that this is what is really driving them. They will try and pretend that they are driven by the desire to use the shortened name because it is supposedly more common, or that they are driven by the desire to protect wikipedia policy. 86.162.190.142 (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This topic is a dead-end as nothing will change and this discussion is not the proper way to go about changing the accepted consensus on the issue. Just to clarify... ignoring the first sentence in my previous comment, my comment is directed at the real-world background of the issue from when the name of the city became an actual issue for people. Whether that reason has become forgotten over the generations or whether it was even realised or acknowledged by those then or now, who knows. Mabuska (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What I think could be done in Wikipedia is change the business where Derry is stuck into all references from other articles. I think that is just plain unreasonable where most of the references for the subject would refer to Londonderry, e.g. when talking about Unionists from the city. Dmcq (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Setting politicians to the side for a minute, we could always go by what the source says for article content but that could leave many articles with the two spellings spread throughout it in an incoherent and inconsistent manner, which takes away from an article. It would also open up source wars with people pitting sources that state different against the other leading to endless disputes. Mabuska (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If people are encouraged to find sources that's fine by me. I don't think they'll find an endless supply of good sources. Dmcq (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

If they'd be as willing to find sources for more useful stuff it'd be better lol. Oh, what constitutes a good source will be the subject of intense debates too, you know this site by now. Mabuska (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What you must remember is that no wikipedia policy is binding. Therefore it's wrong to justify a particular controversial edit on the grounds that it is wikipedia policy. I changed it to Londonderry in the Nigel Dodds article. His own website states that he was born in Londonderry. It was reverted to Derry by an editor who claimed that he personally supported the use of the name 'Londonderry', but that he had changed it to 'Derry' out of obedience to wikipedia policy. If he was telling the truth then it struck me as being a touch of the Stockholm syndrome. Yes, go ahead and feel free to change it to Londonderry in any article that you feel like. There is no binding policy that says you are not allowed to do that. This article could easily be changed to Londonderry and justified on the back of the Kingston upon Hull article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_upon_Hull where the less common, but official name, forms the title of the article. 86.162.190.142 (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with "Stockholm syndrome", I said that I support current Wikipedia policy on the issue, i.e. that of not using official names, since that would have led to us having an article at "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" until 2011, instead of Libya, which would be ridiculous. We also have Ivory Coast and Republic of Ireland, instead of the official names, which I also support. The current, agreed manual of style on that issue says to use Derry for the city and Londonderry for the county. That's been upheld in numerous discussions and if editors want to change that, they should go to the WP:COMMONNAME page and make their case there. I would strongly urge editors, including the i.p. who raised this, not to go around ignoring previously agreed consensus, as that's a recipe for disruption. Valenciano (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, they have got it all wrong. Look at the Grid reference box. It says Derry City, County Londonderry, and gives a link to Derry City council which was a larger area than the City of Londonderry, and which is now defunct. The City of Londonderry is a smaller area which still exists and which is not actually part of the county of Londonderry. The two don't even have the same car registration letters. The facts in this article are simply not being reported correctly. There is no such thing as a wikipedia policy that is binding, especially where it only serves to perpetrate confusion over and above the actual facts. This all needs to be reviewed and a clear distinction drawn between the City of Londonderry, the County of Londonderry, the Derry city council area (1973 -2015 now defunct), and the Royal Mail postal district of Londonderry. The argument about calling the city 'Derry' and the county 'Londonderry' was all based on a misinformed notion that the historical city and the city council area (1973-2015) were the same thing. The fact that the latter was officially renamed Derry in 1984 was falsely used as a justification for calling the historical city Derry, when it is actually called Londonderry. The Derry thing is all over now, now that the Derry City council has been abolished. That basis for confusion has gone. 86.162.190.142 (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There was no confusion. What you've said has very little relevance. Dmcq (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I had a look at your arguments at the Nigel Dodds article and you were arguing a case for changing this articles name rather than for changing the reference to this article there. This article's name comes under WP:COMMONNAME. References do not come under that policy - the reference is governed in this case by Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles. That agreement is not part of general Wikipedia policy and was only put in to quash the endless wars that beset the project. The situation is much quieter now and I believe a loosening is well overdue. to a large extent in Wikipedia articles are supposed to be independent of each other and depend for their content on the sources. Consistency with an article is definitely desirable but consistency between articles has been rejected time and again as a general principle. If you could just push the case for the Nigel Dodds article I believe that would be much more constructive and effective but it would require agreement at WT:IECOLL. If you could confine yourself to the references in discussions there then there might be some hope for change on that issue but if you start going on about the name of this article it will confuse the issue and stop any hope of some progress as it'll just show the warring still in progress Dmcq (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Status Quo. I think the anon IP needs to be reminded that WIKIPEDIA IS NOT AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. Its a forum. Except this and peace will rein.Dubs boy (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

No. It's not a forum. It's an encyclopaedia that allows groups of activists to distort facts. Anyway, I'll go back now and change it to Londonderry in the Nigel Dodds article. I would never have found this page if it hadn't been for editor Valenciano. He claims to be pro-Londonderry and even has edits to prove it, yet he reverted my Londonderry edit to Derry, supposedly on the grounds of consistency. Either a case of Stockholm syndrome or a misplaced loyalty to a non-binding guideline that he could easily have ignored. He says he works for DUP MLA David Simpson. If he comes back again and reverts my edit to Derry, I'm sure David Simpson and Nigel Dodds will be so proud of him. Meanwhile, I do hope that you will all come and support me. If it's reverted back to Derry again, I will consider the encyclopaedia to be an unreliable farce. I'll be wondering what others lies prevail elsewhere. 86.162.190.142 (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Editors were sick and tired of edit wars on links like that which is why we have the current situation. Could you please try and be part of a solution as I outlined above rather than reinforcing the case for the status quo thanks. Dmcq (talk) 08:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In reply to the ip, No, I didn't say I was pro-Londonderry. I'm not pro-either. Wikipedia works on the basis of consensus, a good thing, since it avoids needless edit wars. I've already told you that you should not change that without getting agreement to change the overall guideline, preferably at WP:COMMONNAME. I've no clue how you read this, clearly ironic, comment of mine and then deduced that I work for David Simpson, something that would be incredibly hard since I've lived in Latvia, Spain or Kazakhstan for the last fifteen years. With that edit, I was making the point that if I worked for every politician who I had changed the page of or defended against POV pushers, I'd be incredibly busy (as well as working for multiple politicians with diametrically opposed beliefs to each other.) Get consensus for your change!!!! Valenciano (talk) 08:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The link comes under WP:IMOS which can be changed by discussion at WT:IECOLL. It is only the name of this article that comes under WP:COMMONNAME. Dmcq (talk) 09:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Valenciano, For somebody who claims to be neutral and disinterested, you are very keen on insisting that Nigel Dodds is stated to come from Derry as opposed to Londonderry. A neutral and disinterested person would never have got involved and would have respected the preferred usage of the subject of the living person's biography. Further, you referred me to this page here and you wrongly claimed that it was an issue of WP:COMMONNAME when it actually comes under WP:IMOS. That was clearly a diversion tactic to guard your change. Some well meaning editor has now added County Londonderry, but unfortunately it's now a mess because the city of Londonderry is outside the county of Londonderry, so you can't live in both. They each have their own Lord Lieutenants and each have their own car license plate letters. Valenciano, you have managed to made a complete shambles of the facts. 86.162.190.142 (talk) 10:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said to you before, it always amuses me when people who are *far more invested* in the topic than I am, try and prove my supposed "agenda", when really they are the ones so keen on pushing the issue, so I'm not even going to bother to dignify that. The basis of this in WP:IMOS is WP:COMMONNAME and as I've said to you numerous times, you need to go there. Continued edit warring over this, or refusal to listen to what you've been told by several editors will be seen as disruptive. Now, go to WP:IMOS and WP:COMMONNAME and make your case please. Valenciano (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I'm the only one to pick up on this comment above by the IP editor: "The City of Londonderry is a smaller area which still exists and which is not actually part of the county of Londonderry." - says it all... Mabuska (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The city is called Londonderry as per a High Court decision in 2007. The article should therefore be renamed, there is no legal argument against it. This makes wikipedia look amateurish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.133.244 (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well it is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit rather than the official encyclopaedia of the British government. The relevant policy is WP:COMMONNAME and its talk page is the place to change that. Dmcq (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * @anonIP, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. It is a democratic forum where consensus does not change, EVER.Dubs boy (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 80.7.133.244, can I suggest that you have a read of WP:OFFICIAL? The legal/official name isn't what actually matters according to Wikipedia policy (rightly or wrongly). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "It is a democratic forum where consensus does not change", is that so Dubs boy? Take a look at WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:NOTADEMOCRACY and WP:CCC, which discounts that entire sentence. Mabuska (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My comment stands. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia but more a forum where Consensus Can Change but it is often ignored.Dubs boy (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest you look up the meaning of consensus because there has been no consensus here or for that matter no consensus for years for a change to the policy. Yes editors here and there like myself would love reality and legal status prevail, but no consensus amongst all involved. Your failure to understand these subtleties and differences is what leads to so many problems for you on this site. Mabuska (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would hazard a guess that the number of drive by shooters probably out number those that claim consensus. I don't care really. I did try and change the template to reflect common_name but all it did was remove "Londonderry" from the infobox. It is a little confusing that the title of the article is Derry based on common name yet Derry is also considered the official name in the infobox. It can't be both surely? "Don't call me Shirley".Dubs boy (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox parameters have no bearing on the actual status of one name or another, they are simply parameter names - though obviously that'll not sit with you. Mabuska (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think what Dubs boy meant is that when he changed the parameter name from official to common, the name that appears in the infobox changed from "Derry/Londonderry" to "Derry". I'm not sure why that was the case. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Spot on.Dubs boy (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My response is in regards to this statement: "yet Derry is also considered the official name in the infobox". The parameter has no real-world bearing, it is just a parameter name. Mabuska (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I think parameters are to be consistent across templates. So if the template uses official_name parameter, then I believe there is a reason for that. Newcastle upon Tyne is another example where the page title and infobox use the official name even though most would use the common name of Newcastle. Why this page is inconsistent and ignores the template is a mystery. Anti-London sentiment? Nonsense.Dubs boy (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The reverse policy seems to apply to Hull http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_upon_Hull In this case wikipedia uses the official name and not the common name. I doubt that there is a consensus wanting to use the name Derry for this article. Many who call it Derry, only do so for short and wouldn't worry in the slightest about books and documents using the full name Londonderry. I wonder would the Republic of Ireland consider re-joining the UK? That would solve the problem because this problem has been stirred up by anti-London sentiment arising amongst a minority. 86.145.99.45 (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to suggest that the Republic of Ireland rejoin the UK to the appropriate authorities, if you think that would solve our problem. ;-) Cordless Larry (talk) 21:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The article about the state Ireland is called Republic of Ireland because of a clash of names and that probably is what happened to the Kingston-on-Hull article as well - there's just so many Hulls it would not be the main topic. That comes under the section WP:NATURAL of the names policy. I'm not sure what you meant by anti-London sentiment, I don't think anything like that has been much of a factor in anything - the problems and antipathies have been mostly much closer to home. Dmcq (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I would say that it is the singular reason for the dispute. "London" is in the name for an important historical reason, and this dispute is being perpetrated by elements who are attempting to alter history by hiding the London connection. Of the people who do tend to call it Derry, omitting the "London" prefix, most them are simply doing it for short, and would be quite happy that the full official name would be used in an encyclopaedia article. Nobody is going to put up a prolonged fight just to give a shortened name precedence over a full name unless there is another underlying motive. The fight is being perpetrated by elements who are anti-London. The argument about common name doesn't hold water because from what I can see, Londonderry is the common name. I have never seen any evidence that Derry is in more widespread use than Londonderry. The media outlets all use Londonderry as do all official documents and have heard both used in equal measure in conversations. And there's another mistake in the article. The city of Londonderry is no longer in a district council area called Derry. It's now in a new district council area called Derry and Strabane. Maybe it's unrealistic to expect the Republic of Ireland to re-join the UK, but it would certainly help to unite the British people again in harmony and end this kind of anti-London vindictiveness which causes unnecessary ill feeling for everybody. I suggest that all headings be changed to Londonderry, but that Derry can be used throughout the text. 86.145.99.45 (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say there is a reason why the first photo in the Name section has a signpost with "London" obscured. Anti-London sentiment is a contributing factor to the name dispute.Dubs boy (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

A photograph that is more appropriate to an article about the name dispute, and the motives behind the dispute, than it is to an article about the City of Londonderry itself. Yes, I agree. Somebody with an axe to grind has placed that photograph in the article to show that some vandal with a political point of view has defaced a road sign. It's not relevant to the subject "City of Londonderry". There is no way that there would ever be an edit war at Kingston-Upon-Hull on the grounds that Hull is the common name. Nobody who normally calls it "Hull" would fight to have the article title changed to Hull. The argument about "common name" that is used here to justify cutting London out of the name does not hold. As for Londonderry, has anybody actually proved that Derry is the common name, and if so, where is the proof? I would challenge that this is the case at all. I can just about accept it when somebody changes it to Derry simply because of their politics, but it's pathetic seeing all these long standing editors changing it to Derry and arguing that they are merely upholding wikipedia policy, when no such policy exists. There is no such thing as a consensus in the past that becomes legally binding for all times in the future. If the consensus changes to restore it to Londonderry, then it will be changed. The truncated name "Derry" cannot be locked in as permanent policy. What is needed is for all these editors who keep changing it to Derry to state why they are doing so. If they state that it is because of policy, then they should be disregarded. If they state it's because of their own personal politics, then at least we can start to assess what the real consensus and motives are. 86.145.99.45 (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also a note to editor Dmcq, I see that editor Dubs correctly changed a label to common name and that you changed it back to 'official name'. That tells me all I need to know. You are being dishonest. You must know fine well that Derry is not the official name. 86.145.99.45 (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 86.145.99.45, that's because when the common name parameter is used, "Londonderry" disappears from the infobox for some reason (see this edit), and I presume you don't want that? Please think carefully and actually read edit summaries before making accusations against other editors. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The parameter to the template is unfortunately named but it has no bearing on the article text which is what policy is about. Yes there have been checks done on what is the common name if you look through the archves. By anti-London I thought you meant anti the government in Britain rather than the part of the name or did you just mean the part of the name? It was in relation to the British government that I was saying that was pretty much irrelevant. As to everyone getting together as one big happy family you do realize a lot of people in Northern Ireland on both sides think of the British government and much of the people in England as a depraved bunch of sodomites and baby killers so I wouldn't say there was →a lot of fellow feeling even in the united bit. Dmcq (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

That is quite an antagonistic statement Dmcq. How would you like it if someone stated: Just the same as they think the republic is nothing but land full of paedo priests.?? Expected more of you. Mabuska (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well of course I'm sure a lot of people do think that but I don't see what your point is except to support what I said about there being little chance of one happy family under a government in London. Britain supports gay marriage and women wanting an abortion and is proud to do so. There's been a number of scandals about paedo priests in Ireland but I don't think anyone is proud of that! And if anyone looks at all the hysteria about the SNP possibly having some power then they'll see that London government rather than UK is what people in England want. Dmcq (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTAFORUM. Mabuska (talk) 17:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah I think that's appropriate for the whole business. Dmcq (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * SOLUTIONS
 * The naming dispute has been debated, discussed and voted on across a number of years, and in reality their is only five feasible solutions:

1. Keep the current arrangement in place 2. Change the name of the Derry article to Londonderry 3. Change the name of the County Londonderry article to County Derry 4. Change the name of the County Londonderry article to County Derry and the Derry article to Londonderry 5. Change the name of the County Londonderry article to County Derry/Londonderry and the Derry article to Derry/Londonderry

There are so many contrary policies in place to deal with naming, in relation to this article the main policies are that names should PREFERABLY be neutral, official and common.

Here are the main policies I have collected regarding this issue:


 * "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria)." - Although Derry may be a slightly more common name for the city it is not used across a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, as such this should be ignored.
 * "Article titles that combine alternative names are discouraged." - this is often cited to be the main policy which goes against naming both articles Derry/Londonderry and County Derry/Londonderry, the policy states that joining the two names together is discouraged, but is allowed
 * "By the design of Wikipedia's software, an article can only have one title. When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. If there are at least three alternative names, or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended (see Lead section). These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historic names, significant names in other languages, etc. There is also no reason why alternative names cannot be used in article text, in contexts where they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article. For example, the city now called Gdańsk is referred to as Danzig in historic contexts to which that name is more suited (e.g. when it was part of Germany or a Free City). Likewise, even though Color's title omits the "u", Orange (colour)'s title does not." - this supports in the current arrangement, yet again does not forbid the use of multiple names.

HOWEVER policies are to be treated more as guidelines, "While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus." - this essentially surmises that the only solution to the problem is by getting a general consensus. I think the only way to truly "solve" this problem as such is to find a solution which the majority (or as near to a majority) of people agree with.

The only set rules have found is that Wikipedia should be written in a neutral point of view and does not have any firm rules (see here)

I think what is necessary is a consensus which the majority of people agree upon: I believe that the current arrangement is not supported by the majority.

'''Here is how I propose we (attempt) to resolve this issue: For each proposal listed above each user is able to vote once: they can either vote in favour of a proposal (which they wish to be implement/find it to be an acceptable or moderately acceptable solution) or against it (if they do not accept such a name). The solutions which receive the majority of support are then voted on again in a second round of votes (if necessary) with users stating which they believe is the least suitable solution, and so on until two solutions are left: these are then voted on, with the solution which receives a simple majority becoming or remaining the articles title.'''

This will of-course need to be discussed and agreed upon, I also believe that a set time/date should be put in place to ensure that the issue is settled once and for all. Italay90 (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, you cannot use "County Derry" as that has no historical basis. The county was initially County Coleraine when it was called Derry. following the city being renamed Londonderry, the county was renamed County Londonderry. When it comes to the city, I would like the official name to be the main title because I believe the commonname argument is skewed as there is no distinction between people who  think it is the official name and those who use it as a slang term for the city.  The C of E  God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 19:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The county article is called County Londonderry and there's no conflict with this article, I don't know why people bring that up. That name is also the common name for the county so there's no conflict with Wikipedia's policies. The one there is an argument about is the name of this article, the name Derry was clearly much more common for the city last time I looked, it wasn't marginal, so if that hasn't changed I would guess yet another RfC on the question will come to the same conclusion as the last few. However it has been a year I think since the last one so I guess another one would be okay if people really want to test the question. Dmcq (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why exactly are you so keen on having the official name rather than the name that is quite clearly preferred by the majority of the inhabitants? Dmcq (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Because of the important historical reasons why "London" is in the name in the first place and the fact that attempts are being made by anti-British elements to disrespect those reasons. 86.145.99.45 (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So you want to teach people some respect? Just the editors on Wikipedia, the people in the city or the world in general? Dmcq (talk) 08:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Dmcq, I don't want people misrepresenting the facts out of disrespect for aspects of history. On your other point above, I'm inclined to sympathize with you. It's sad the way the UK has gone. But ironically it's the nationalists in Northern Ireland who want to bring Northern Ireland into line with the mainland in those respects, and not the unionists. Also, it looks very much as if the Republic of Ireland is also very keen to follow suit down that road. Maybe it's a sinking ship all round. Maybe it's all over. Maybe we'll all be in for the fire and brimstone together. 86.145.99.45 (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Was the common name of the article sourced from a survey of the inhabitants of the City? At a guess the city is probably broken down by 80% Catholic vs 20% Protestant so Derry probably would be the common name. If it were based on the inhabitants of Northern Ireland then I would imagine a slim majority would call the city Londonderry. Using google hits does not uncover hidden bias or the political views of those responsible for the articles that google counts but then again this would only contribute to common name usage. I just don't know. It does seem inconsistent with the template though to use common name above official name when you consider Newcastle upon Tyne and Kingston upon Hull. Might take a read through the previous discussions. May take a while.Dubs boy (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Google is not a good source especially for this issue with so many places having the "derry" article in their name. Mabuska (talk) 12:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would agree. But from the looks of it, WP:COMMONNAME has been determined by using google hits. This article does seem weighted in favour of Derry usage opposed to Londonderry, regardless of using County Londonderry as a make weight, which is completely irrelevant.Dubs boy (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I do agree with Italay90 that this issue needs to be properly discussed and sorted once and for all. Support for the consensus is thin and may be in the minority now considering how many editors involved in the original consensus no longer edit. Its been that long since it was put in place, that heck I've been editing this site for 7/8 years and I wasn't involved the discussions that led to it and I have been involved in a quite a few discussions on controversial matters that resulted in agreements for many far-reaching aspects of articles to do with Northern Ireland. Mabuska (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The common name vs official name argument is pretty redundant given that wikipolicy should not be strictly followed. @ DMCQ - It's wikipolicy not wikilaw...


 * The naming dispute has existed for a long period: going on strictly what is official does not provide a solution. The County is known as both Derry and Londonderry, and due to the religious and political affiliation to the two names, deciding upon one or the other should be done with extreme caution.


 * I believe that using the County Londonderry article as a way of making this article neutral and vice versa does not work: it does not express the views of the majority. I advocate the use of Derry/Londonderry for this article and County Derry/Londonderry for the County Londonderry article: it's a neutral solution which does not have any bias towards one side or the other. Further to this, it's accepted and known by locals and other organisations when referring to the area. Please put aside your squabbles to try to find an actual, long-term solution which will be accepted by both parties: there is not enough popular support among either side which will actually bring about some progress in fixing the article name, it's been debated and voted on across a number of years, and on all accounts has failed. Italay90 (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the County Londonderry makeweight argument is a bit flimsy (although I'm not as familiar with debates about the name of the county as I am with those about the name of the city, so I won't express a view on that title). I also find myself increasingly of the view that Derry/Londonderry might be the best compromise. Is there a precedent for this type of title? I'm trying to think whether there are any other articles on cities with disputed names that use both in the title. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The whole business about County Londonderry is irrelevant. There is a clear consensus against slash or hyphen names, the most notable case was in the Gdańsk-Danzig debate which was far more heated than this one. A place where the local style guide WP:IMOS conflicts with general policy though is in insisting that Derry be used practically everywhere, in WP:NAME it say "There is also no reason why alternative names cannot be used in article text, in contexts where they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article. For example, the city now called Gdańsk is referred to as Danzig in historic contexts to which that name is more suited (e.g. when it was part of Germany or a Free City)" At the moment we have people going around changing Londonderry to Derry even when it is quite inappropriate to the context, e.g. in articles about unionists. where most sources about them speak of Londonderry. This is something I definitely would like to see changed. Dmcq (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * @DMCQ - Again wiki policy is not the law. The naming dispute for County Derry/Londonderry interlinks with the debate regarding the city itself: the name is derived from the city: as such the same naming dispute and debate surrounds it. The main reason as to why the article was named "County Londonderry" was as a resolution to the conflict. I would suggest you try to be more open-minded to the idea of finding a neutral solution, and of the solutions possible which you find most preferable: entrenching yourself for in favour of a single alternative which isn't necessarily a solution will likely result in no change as opposed to a change which most contributors would prefer.
 * @Cordless Larry - Well I found Cocos (Keeling) Islands. There's no rules regarding using double names, but the policies suggest to look for alternatives: in this case all other options have been exhausted however. Wikipedia's policies aren't to be taken entirely literally, they are just guidelines. General consensus is necessary to reach a resolution, and the only resolution which I feel would be suitable and neutral is with the name Derry/Londonderry. 86.129.225.253 (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There's also Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) and Imia/Kardak. 86.129.225.253 (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Imia/Kardak case is interesting and illustrates something about Wikipedia - it is up to editors to make changes. The others are just disambiguation markers from the more common use of the name. As far as I can see in the Imia/Kardak article what has happened is that nobody has gone and bothered to raise an RfC to change the name, you can if you want to cause some trouble and I'd guess it would eventually be called just Imia but I prefer to let sleeping dogs lie. Here the point has been raised and discussed so we're past that point. Dmcq (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want an example of an island that has been the subject of a bitter dispute over the article name see Senkaku Islands. As to my opening my mind etc., why is it that people like you come along and spend so much time on this and are uninterested in fixing the problem of other articles saying Derry where Londonderry is more appropriate? All you demonstrate is that the idea behind that of squashing endless arguments and reversions has a point. Dmcq (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think all related articles should use Derry/Londonderry unless it's contextually appropriate to use either Derry or Londonderry - I can't see any instances where a name change would be necessary for any other articles related to the city/county other than this article and the County Londonderry article (possibly the river?). Do you have a proposal which would be supported by most people? I believe this is the most (moderately) well-supported solution which also keeps a neutral point of view: there have been various votes for renaming the article to Londonderry - none of which have been successful due to a lack of support among most contributors, as such alternative solutions must be found to ensure that the majority are satisfied: this can only be done using a neutral name which will be accepted by most Unionist, Republican and neutral contributors. Derry/Londonderry has become the most common neutral name for the area found across a variety of sources: at the moment it is the only alternative to the current arrangement which keeps a neutral point of view (the current arrangement appears to be widely disliked by Unionist and many neutral contributors as can be demonstrated by the various accounts of editing "Derry" out of the article/switching "Londonderry" before Derry at the beginning of the article). The question is, of the "neutral" solutions for the article do you support Derry more so than Derry/Londonderry? 86.129.225.253 (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're entitled to raise yet another WP:RfC on the matter if you wish. As I said it's a while since the last one. Unfortunately the type argument you put there does not indicate how many wouldobject it if it was Londonderry or Derry/Londonderry or (London)Derry or any other alternative. Dmcq (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * @DMCP: Thank you, I would be looking to have a vote on whether to keep the current arrangement of Derry and County Londonderry or to change the name of the articles to Derry/Londonderry and County Derry/Londonderry respectively to provide a more neutral solution to the issue which keeps both names/sides in mind at the title of the two articles: as the current arrangement leaves room for bias due based on which article a user reads, from their own perspective visiting one article would appear biased, furthermore the Derry article is used more compared to County Londonderry article - it is not an effective "weight" to ensure neutrality. I do not believe that the vote should be diluted by other alternatives such as (London)Derry etc. as this may result in no change despite the fact that more might be opposed to the current situation: Derry/Londonderry is the most common and recognised alternative name for the city/county. Italay90 (talk) 10:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You'd be far better off just forgetting about County Londonderry. That has nothing to do with this. Dmcq (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * County Londonderry's name is derived from the name of the city and as such it shares the same disputes over the name: to provide a neutral solution it is only fair that both articles should be altered to ensure that the two names are represented in the article titles: changing one article would not be neutral and as such would (in my view) not be an effective solution which I doubt would be supported by the majority of contributors. I would prefer to have both names represented across both articles than the current arrangement which a reading/determinant bias. I have opened a RfC below on the matter... Italay90 (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2015
Why is the official name of the city of Derry/Londonderry second to the unofficial one?

Lolitsmeyo (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * See the discussion above. Wikipedia policy, rightly or wrongly, is to use the most commonly used names for articles rather than official ones. See WP:COMMONNAME. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  11:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is complete nonsense. No-one calls "newcastle" "newcastle upon tyne" yet shock and horror wikipedia's article lists that as the main name!89.242.104.138 (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Renaming the Derry and County Londonderry articles
Do you believe that Derry/Londonderry and County Derry/Londonderry are more preferable names to the current Derry and County Londonderry articles to resolve the Derry/Londonderry naming dispute? Italay90 (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Note:
 * Please do not comment in the support/oppose sections
 * Comments which express a clear opinion for one of the solutions set out below will not be considered unless you sign directly underneath one of the sections (Support/ Support for Derry/Londonderry, oppose for County Derry/Londonderry/Oppose)
 * You may sign multiple solutions.

Support
89.242.104.138 (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Italay90 (talk) 11:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 2)  C h r i s ☮ (Talk) 11:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Support for Derry/Londonderry, oppose for County Derry/Londonderry
- support changing the name of the Derry article to Derry/Londonderry yet oppose changing the name of the County Londonderry article'''
 * 1) Italay90 (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 2)  The C of E  God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 22:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Nicknack009 (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  09:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Scolaire (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 6)  Mo ainm  ~Talk  15:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Valenciano (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) ONR (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) --Tóraí (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Finnegas (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 11) Hugh (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 12) HighKing  -- HighKing ++ 19:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Undecided so far

 * 1) Mabuska (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments
(note- any support in the comments section will not be considered, please sign below one of the solutions above so that your views are definitely taken into account should a name change occur):
 * In this unique case I feel that the neutral standpoint guidance from wikipedia is more applicable than the common name policy as both are obviously common names. C h r i s ☮ (Talk) 11:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * From the previous discussion I would like to add that it is my belief that this is the best neutral solution which will take both sides into consideration. Wikipolicy suggests names should be neutral, official and common: there is no clear common name for the articles and although the official name is Londonderry, it is still regarded by many to be Derry (and is referred to as Derry in the Republic of Ireland) - as such I feel that given the sensitivity surrounding the issue an exception should be made to use a dual name. There are some examples of dual names on wikipedia - Kingdom of Israel (Samaria), Imia/Kardak and Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Whilst dual names are discouraged they are not prohibited when appropriate. Wikipolicy is simply set down as guidelines as opposed to rules. This is about finding a solution which is accepted by all sides as opposed to one which has a bias depending on the reader (ie. one reader may find Derry to be biased whilst another could find County Londonderry to be biased). Italay90 (talk) 11:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * From the previous RfC's it was pretty clear the current names were the common names by quite a margin, I find it annoying that straight assertions are made like that without any study of the evidence. Anyway as far as I can see what is being asked for here is that the name be 'neutral' and that an exception be made on that basis. The applicable policy on that is WP:POVNAMING which is part of WP:Neutral point of view but I think I'll sit this out and not insist on policy and see where it all goes. Dmcq (talk) 12:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Londonderry/Derry for the city could work in my view but County Londonderry should not be changed because there never was a "county derry" historically.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 21:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * @CofE - This isn't about finding a name which is official but rather a compromise which will be accepted by most editors: the only possible arrangement which could be accepted by most contributors which includes Londonderry in the title of the Derry article is by similarly representing Derry in the County Londonderry article. I would like to stress that this choice is between using Derry/Londonderry or the status quo which does not work for so many contributors: you can abstain from this vote and risk having Derry/Londonderry being used in both articles or risk not having Londonderry represented in the title of the Derry article. Italay90 (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't see why you jumped straight into a single proposal on this issue. Instead a proper test/discussion on where the community lay on the matter should have been done first to see how strong consensus actually is for the present solution. If there is a weak consensus and desire for a change then several proposals should be proposed to see where everyone involved lies on the matter.
 * The proposal does have ever growing usage in television and radio advertising and news and even in some papers. The problem is this is an encyclopedia that should be based on reality. The county and city belong to the UK which officially calls them both Londonderry. Judges have upheld this decision every single time it has been taken to court. This is all I am saying for now without going off on one about bigotry and racism. Mabuska (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Have to agree with C_of_E. To call the County "Derry" would be to acknowledge a political bias that has no historical basis. County Londonderry should not be a consideration at the page.Dubs boy (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose County Londonderry change There is no such county as County Derry. Is not supported by an official documents. No plebiscite or other such thing has taken place to change it from its original name. Mealy-mouthed attempts at NPOV does not permit Wiki to make history. It is what it is. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keeping that all in mind (and the quite considerable support for it) I'll open up a third alternative for the renaming of this article whilst keeping the county Londonderry article as is. If you wish to sign multiple options then that is fine. The proposal with the highest support will (hopefully) be taken forward. Italay90 (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * NOTE: Even if you have expressed views towards one of the solutions set out above, this will not be considered unless you sign your name below one or more of the said solutions found above.Italay90 (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment Sorry, Italay, this RFC is a mess. It was/is entirely unclear what you are actually proposing. I saw this earlier today, read the lot, and only now does it dawn on me that what you are actually proposing, i.e., moving Derry to "Derry/Londonderry". Given the limitations of the Mediawiki software and the nature of URLs, what you're proposing isn't actually technically possible - an article name cannot have a forward-slash character. (A secondary issue is the language: "please sign below one of the solutions above". What?! Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * @ Bastun - Imia/Kardak Italay90 (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is an article with a forward slash in its name - Derry/Londonderry name dispute.


 * Maybe what you're seeing there is an article called "Derry/Londonderry name dispute" and it is actually possible to use slashes in article names with newer versions of Mediawiki software; however I think what's actually happening is that what you're seeing is an article called "Londonderry name dispute", which is a sub-page of a page called "Derry", in the same way that I have a page called "sandbox" which is a sub-page of my User:Bastun page. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right up to a point, but it is a small problem not a PITA and it is not a blocker on its own. See WP:TITLESLASH. Dmcq (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * See also WP:NC-SLASH. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 01:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Nicknack009 (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC) The current compromise is well-established and works fine. Changing it will resolve nothing. Leave it alone.


 * There will never be a version of these articles that is acceptable to everybody - ever. Derry for the city and County Londonderry for the county has been an established compromise. It would be great if there was some sort of "silent" redirect where you could type Londonderry into the search box and get the same article with the names changed, but we don't have that feature and probably never will, so what we have is as close as we're ever going to get.. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose The current compromise is well established and has been relatively stable for several years now. Leave as is. (Why doesn't the RFC just use "Support" and "Oppose" like every other RFC?) Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This is not a case of COMMONNAME or "neutrality". It is a case where a convention was adopted early on in the project and has served very well for over ten years. The same convention is used by Irish Historical Studies, a prestigious academic journal. There is no need to change it. Scolaire (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes the current arrangement has been in use for a while, but that does not necessarily make it more stable simply as a result of it's long-term use: the article has been vandalised on a number of accounts with a series of debates taking place across the talk page: although some may be satisfied with the current arrangement it fails to consider both views. As mentioned earlier the use of County Londonderry as some sort of "weight" for Derry is preposterous, their is a readership bias and no clear grounds which suggest 'Derry' is suitable. @ Scolaire - your prestigious academic journal takes a - what we can assume to be - slightly biased Irish view on the situation: the city is indeed referred to as Derry in the Republic of Ireland yet both views from the United Kingdom and Ireland should be considered to ensure that the article represents the views of all people. Italay90 (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would also like to mention that after some consideration, I have decided to sign both the support and the support for Derry/Londonderry, oppose for County Derry/Londonderry: I understand that the usage of County Derry in the County Londonderry article is not appropriate for many and I tend to agree with this should it be the case. Articles containing either Derry or Londonderry which have no historical basis for the other have been given the most suitable name (eg. river Derry, Londonderry Port, Derry City Council) - although my preferred alternative would be to use both I can see that this appears to be the less popular solution and brings the names of aforementioned articles into question. The city on the other hand is currently known as both Derry (in the Republic of Ireland and across some sections of local government) and Londonderry (in the United Kingdom/officially in the UK): using one name as opposed to the other is open to bias and conflict which is not what Wikipedia stands for. This is further made worse by the religious and political attachments of both names which again makes the use of Derry without the inclusion of Londonderry biased. Italay90 (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The article has been vandalised on a number of accounts with a series of debates taking place across the talk page. That's not the way I would put it. A number of people over the years have edited in good faith to change "Derry" or "County Londonderry". In some cases they were simply reverted; in others there has been a discussion. But every discussion on the question has ended with a consensus in favour of retaining the status quo. That's why it is still the status quo. Now, you have every right to open a new discussion, on the basis that consensus can change, but be aware that there is every likelihood that it has not changed.
 * Your prestigious academic journal takes a - what we can assume to be - slightly biased Irish view on the situation: this is an unnecessary slur. The journal, like any journal worthy of the name, maintains strict political neutrality, and many of its contributors are unionist in outlook. I'll say no more than that. Scolaire (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This RFC will not gather any sort of support because it is so badly written. Close the RFC and open a fresh account of the situation.


 * Suggested options for this page:
 * a. Derry - nothing changes
 * b. Derry with infobox official_name=Londonderry(only)
 * c. Derry~Londonderry as used by City of Culture page - www.cityofculture2013.com (or an equivalent Derry/Londonderry)
 * d. Londonderry - use the official name as is common with this template at Newcastle upon Tyne and Kingston upon Hull
 * e. Derry, Northern Ireland

Dubs boy (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There are good reasons why the Tyneside Newcastle is at Newcastle Upon Tyne. There are numerous other Newcastles around, in particular the Australian one and, in England, Newcastle Under Lyme, which is one quarter of the size, not to mention many smaller ones, including others in England, Wales and Ireland. Hull can refer to the part of a ship, the river or several other places of the same name, I think in that case, they decided there was no primary topic. Valenciano (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I would imagine Newcastle, England is the most prominent of any of the other namesakes so I'm surprised that common name is NOT applied here. Seems like the lesser prominent names are appended with a 2nd location value such as Newcastle, New South Wales or Derry, New Hampshire.Dubs boy (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Most prominent, yes. But Newcastle Under Lyme, with 75,000 people (compared to 280k for the Tyneside one) is not of insignificant size and if you need a disambiguation anyway, an ambiguous one like Newcastle, England isn't as good as Newcastle Upon Tyne, which at least is clear enough. Valenciano (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone would be worried about ambiguity between Newcastle(officially Newcastle upon Tyne) and Newcastle Under Lyme. Certainly any concern of ambiguity has not been noted here in regards to the use of Derry. I've added a 5th option to my suggestion because Derry, New Hampshire is roughly a 3rd of the size of Londonderry which is not insignificant either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubs boy (talk • contribs) 17:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This RfC is failing :P if I open another RfC there's little guarantee a solution will be found due to a split vote which would not represent a solution which most people would prefer: there are so many alternative names that the status quo will have the natural advantage even if it is supported by the minority of contributors. Does anyone else support a re-written RfC or should I simply close this and let it lie? Italay90 (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think close and open a new RFC with the suggestions I have made. I have not voted on the RFC because I don't exactly know what I'm voting on. Dubs boy (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * , the RfC is not failing. There have been eleven !votes in just over 24 hours. Even better, a clear consensus is beginning to emerge. Leave it be. And, you leave it be as well, please. All it needs is to be allowed to run until there's enough discussion to allow it to be closed in the normal way by a neutral closer. Jumping from one thing to another achieves nothing. Scolaire (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The RFC is a mess. What exactly are you opposing? The name change of this page or the County Page or Both? 4 of those opposed have not even given a risen for opposition. That is not a discussion. I've been reminded in the past that an RFC is not a voting system or a poll. I would hope that this RFC could be used to gather all the options before going to a poll. Is anyone going to reach out to all the users who have come by this page, queried the article name before being told "status quo" rules? I'm sure they would have an opinion aswell.Dubs boy (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Its an old discussion but does have a tally system of drive by editors who opposed and supported name change [].Dubs boy (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * And probably off topic and been raised before but the article lead is somewhat bias. The original compromise on the naming dispute had the lead begin with Londonderry. If you look at Newcastle upon Tyne. Official_name as Article header, Lead: Official_name commonly known as Common_name. Kingston upon Hull has Official_name as Article header, Lead:Common_name officially known as Official_name. It seems only here where Common_name is both the Article name and article lead. Someone has clearly gone out of their way to set hierarchy and go against the original compromise. Dubs boy (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think of this as a request for WP:IAR, which is one of the core policies, to have a title which is less one-sided and divisive rather than just go by the letter of WP:TITLE. I'm a rules person but I can definitely see the point so I've abstained as is my right, it would be nice if people gave reasons for their decisions. As Dubs boy says an RfC isn't supposed to be a straight vote but based on the weight of the arguments. Dmcq (talk) 09:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Four people gave reasons for their !votes. These were removed from the polling area to the Comments area, and a notice was added saying "Please do not comment when signing support - there is a comments section below". This goes completely against established RfC procedure, and has apparently given subsequent participants the impression that it is purely a head-count, and that giving reasons is forbidden. Taking all the above posts into consideration, I am inclined to change my mind: the RfC has failed, it is a mess, and ought to close it, and just let it lie. It is clear that, no matter how well any RfC is conducted, there is not going to be a consensus for change at this time.  Scolaire (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "This goes completely against established RfC procedure..." Absolutely agree. I was a going to leave a reason but was a bit taken a back that practice here was not to. But there's plenty of discussion here and the question is a well-worn one. The RfC suffices to demonstrate that there's no consensus to move from the current solution. --Tóraí (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , Agreed, its badly written. What was a request for comment has turned into a poll where no one is entirely sure what they are voting on and with no associated space for users to explain their vote. Though there is nothing to stop people providing a reason in the comments section. I suspect the usual guff will be provided. Dubs boy (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This RfC is poorly explained, poorly executed, does not follow standard procedures, calls for headcounts without comments contrary to WP:!VOTE, and has WP:SNOW chance of passing in its current state. Italay90 should withdraw it and move on.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 01:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2015
In the "Culture" section and within the first paragraph, please add the following new sentences after the first sentence: "The accomplished Irish singer Mairead Carlin was born, and lives in Derry along with her parents and sister. Her most recent accomplishment is touring with the internationally acclaimed group Celtic Woman."

Also

In the "Notable People" section, please add a new line: "Mairead Carlin of Celtic Woman."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BobConaway (talk • contribs) 22:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I added her to List of people from Derry, but not to the main article. As far as the main article goes, I added a quick mention, your wording seemed a bit undue Kharkiv07  ( T ) 00:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Reverted: the "Culture" section is not intended to contain a laundry list of artists, and this person is by no means a household name. Probably some other names already in the article could also be removed. In fact, I would suggest cutting it down to Seamus Heaney, Brian Friel and The Undertones. Scolaire (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Lonely Planet
The statement in the article that "many unionists prefer "Londonderry"" is sourced to a Lonely Planet guide to Ireland. Is this really a reliable source for this claim? Another, academic, source is also cited, so I suggest that we delete the reference to Lonely Planet. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As I was typing that comment, I had a nagging feeling that something was familiar about the citation. Embarrassingly, it turns out that that was because I added this reference! In my defence, it was seven years ago, and I did eventually add the journal article as a second reference. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * May I suggest adding something based on Kevin McCafferty's research into use of London(Derry) English? In footnote 3 here, he makes some observations on the use of Londonderry and Derry in everyday speech. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've now added this. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Change "Officially Londonderry" to Unofficially
Change "Officially Londonderry" to Unofficially

Fairly straight forward, here is the reference http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0724/716882-derry/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.155.230.241 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 26 July 2015‎ (UTC)


 * There has been discussion of this in the section above. The official name has not yet been changed. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)